DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Status
Claims 1-8, 10-12, 14-17 and 19 are pending. The pending claims comprise 2 groups:
1) System1: 1-8, 11-12 and 15-17, and
2) Method1: 10, 14 and 19.
All appear to have similar scope.
As of 04/17/2025, system claim 1 is as followed:
1. (Original) A system including at least one computer apparatus, the system comprising:
[1] a region identifier that identifies, from a captured image of ground captured from the sky, a region corresponding to a piece of real estate having a predetermined attribute; and
[2] an address identifier that identifies an address of the piece of real estate corresponding to the identified region.
10. (Currently Amended) A method executed in a system including at least one computer apparatus, the method comprising:
[1] region identification
[2] address identification
Note: for referential purpose, numerals [1]-[2] are added to the beginning of each steps.
Claim Objections
Claims 10, 14 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Independent claim 10 is a method claim but it fails to include steps for carrying out the scope of the claimed invention in “verb + ing” form. For example, [a] “identifying …”, and “identifying …” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-8, 10-12, 14-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: when considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e.,
(1) process,
(2) machine,
(3) manufacture or product, or
(4) composition of matter.
Step 2A, Prong 1: If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception, i.e.,
1) law of nature,
2) natural phenomenon, and
3) abstract idea.
and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include:
(1) Mathematical concepts -- mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations;
(2) Mental processes—concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
(3) Certain methods of organizing human activities.
(i) fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk);
(ii) commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; Legal obligations; Advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations);
(iii) managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
For instance, in Alice Corp. (Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014)), the Court found that “intermediated settlement” was a fundamental economic practice, which is considered as (1) a certain method of organizing human activities, which is an abstract idea.
Step 1:
In the instant case, with respect to claims 1-8, 10-12, 14-17 and 19:
Claim categories:
1) System1: 1-8, 11-12 and 15-17.
3) Method: 10, 14 and 19.
Analysis of Step 1:
Method: claims 10, 14 and 19 are directed to method for identifying an address of a piece of real estate comprising steps of identifying a region from a captured image of the real estate. (Step 1:Yes).
2. System1: claims 1-8, 10-12, 14-17 and 19 are directed to a system including a computer apparatus for identifying an address of a piece of real estate comprising steps of identifying a region from a captured image of the real estate. (Step 1:Yes).
Thus, the claims 1-8, 10-12, 14-17 and 19 are generally directed towards one of the four statutory categories under 35 USC § 101.
Claims 1-8, 10-12, 14-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 2A,
(1) Prong One: Does the claim recite a judicial exception?
(2) Prong Two: Are there any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, then proceeds to step 2B.
Step 2B: Are there any additional elements that adds an inventive concept to the claim? Determine whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, and conventional” in the field (see MPEP 2106.05(d)); or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
A. Step 2A, Prong One:
Claim 1, as exemplary, recites a system/method for identifying an address of a piece of real estate comprising steps of identifying a region from a captured image of the real estate, is a fundamental economic principle or business practice for identifying an address of a piece of real estate from a captured image of ground captured from the sky, a region corresponding to a piece of real estate having a predetermined attribute and an address identifier for identifying an address of the piece of the real estate, which is an abstract idea.
(ii) commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; Legal obligations; Advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations);
Furthermore, independent claims 1 and 10 recite an abstract idea related to evaluation/analyzing a real estate conditions by collecting image data of the real estate from the sky and identifying the corresponding address based on predetermined attributes, which constitutes an abstract idea based on “Mental Processes” related to concepts performed in the human mind including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion.
(2) Mental processes—concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
B. Step 2A, Prong Two:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical applications because it deals with a method for identifying an address of a piece of real estate comprising steps of identifying a region from a captured image of the real estate, by carrying out steps of:
The claims recites the additional elements of:
Steps: Types
[1] identify … region (data)... Data gathering, compare and identifying data.
[2] identify address correspond identified region. Mental analysis, compare, identifying data.
Step [1] is data gathering which is considered as insignificant extra-solution activity steps.
Step [2] is for mental analysis/ evaluating/ identifying the address of the piece of real estate corresponding to the identified region. This mental step is well known business activities for identifying corresponding identity of a target (address of a real estate).
The claim does not result in an improvement to the functioning of the computer system or to any other technology or technical field. Further, the claim limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application by applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way. The combination of the additional elements, a computer, a region identifier, and address identifier, etc., are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic devices. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mental processes) for identifying an address of a piece of real estate comprising steps of identifying a region from a captured image of the real estate and does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
C. Step 2B:
The claims recites the additional elements of steps [1]-[2] above.
Step [1] is data gathering which is considered as insignificant extra-solution activity steps.
Step [2] is for mental analysis/ evaluating/ identifying the address of the piece of real estate corresponding to the identified region. This mental step is well known business activities for identifying corresponding identity of a target (address of a real estate).
The claim does not result in an improvement to the functioning of the computer system or to any other technology or technical field. Further, the claim limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application by applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way. The combination of the additional elements, a computer, computer, a region identifier, and address identifier, etc., are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic devices. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mental processes) for identifying an address of a piece of real estate comprising steps of identifying a region from a captured image of the real estate and does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above, the additional elements, step [2] when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea(s). As for the system claims, mere instructions to apply an exertion using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. These generic computer components, a computer, a region identifier, and address identifier, etc., are claimed at high level of generality to perform their basis functions which amount to no more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the particular technological environment of field of use and further see insignificant extra-solution activity MPEP 2106.05 (f), (g) and (h). The Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs, court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere receipt or transmission of data over a network, sorting data, analyzing data, and transmitting the data is a well-understood, routine and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). The claim are basically collect data, analyze data, and provide set of results, which are not patent eligible, see Electric Power Group, LLC. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is not patent eligible.
As for dep. claims 2-4 (part of 1 above), which deal with further details of the address identifier and owner identifier, these further limit the abstract idea of the address and owner analysis, without including: (a) an improvement to another technology or technical field, (b) an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or (c ) meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claims 2-4 are not considered as being “significantly more”, and thus do not facilitate the claim to meet the “inventive concept”.
As for dep. claims 5-6 (part of 1 above), which deal with further details of the address and owner analysis, these further limit the abstract idea of the analysis effectiveness, without including: (a) an improvement to another technology or technical field, (b) an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or (c ) meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claims 5-6 are not considered as being “significantly more”, and thus do not facilitate the claim to meet the “inventive concept”.
As for dep. claims 7-8 (part of 1 above), which deal with further details of the region analysis, these further limit the abstract idea of the analysis effectiveness, without including: (a) an improvement to another technology or technical field, (b) an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or (c ) meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claims 7-8 are not considered as being “significantly more”, and thus do not facilitate the claim to meet the “inventive concept”.
As for dep. claims 10-11 (part of 1 above), which deal with further details of the region and owner analysis, these further limit the abstract idea of the analysis effectiveness, without including: (a) an improvement to another technology or technical field, (b) an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or (c ) meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claims 10-11 are not considered as being “significantly more”, and thus do not facilitate the claim to meet the “inventive concept”.
As for dep. claim 12 (part of 1 above), which deals with a display list of the owners and their addresses, these further limit the abstract idea of the analysis effectiveness, without including: (a) an improvement to another technology or technical field, (b) an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or (c ) meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claim 12 is not considered as being “significantly more”, and thus do not facilitate the claim to meet the “inventive concept”.
As for dep. claims 15-17 (part of 1 above), which deal with further details of the address features and transmission of information to various entities, these further limit the address analysis and data transmission, without including: (a) an improvement to another technology or technical field, (b) an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or (c ) meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Therefore, claims 15-17 are not considered as being “significantly more”, and thus do not facilitate the claim to meet the “inventive concept”.
Claims 10, 14 and 19 are the method claims of the system claims 1-8, 11-12 and 15-17 and are rejected for the same reason set forth above.
Therefore, claims 1-8, 10-12, 14-17 and 19 are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. step 2B: NO
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 8 and 15 (system), and 10 (method) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by JP 2005-196321 A.
As for independent system claim 1, JP 2005-196321-A discloses a system including at least one computer apparatus, the system comprising:
{see [009… on a computer, specifying an address….]}
[1] a region identifier that identifies, from a captured image of ground captured from the sky, a region corresponding to a piece of real estate having a fixed (predetermined) criterion; and
PNG
media_image1.png
388
451
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
152
751
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
126
698
media_image3.png
Greyscale
{see Fig. 4 which discloses the captured image of a building/house with topography from an aerial photograph or satellite photograph,” and claim 1 “a region identifier that identifies a region (area and direction of a roof) corresponding to a piece of real estate (house or building) having a predetermined (fixed) attribute (criterion), see [claim 1 “…fixed criterion from the image information.”] wherein “roof shape, a roof area, or a roof direction of a rooftop of a building” reads over “predetermined attribute” features. Also, see similar teachings in [0009 … shape, area and direction of a roof …satisfying a fixed standard from the image information….] above.
[2] an address identifier that identifies an address of the piece of real estate corresponding to the identified region.
{see [claim1] or
[0001 …by a computer, specifying a customer address and owner by collating with map data..],
[0009] “means for selecting a prospective house satisfying a fixed standard from the image information. And a means for collating the prospective house with map data on a computer, specifying an address…”]}
The “means for … specifying an address” reads over the term “an address identifier” that identifies an address of the piece of real estate corresponding to the identified region.
As for dep. claim 3 (part of 1 above), which deals with an owner identifier that identifies an own of the piece of real estate, this is taught in [0009 … specifying an address, an owner … from address retrieve data.]
As for dep. claim 4 (part of 1 above), which deals with a corresponding relationship between the owner and the address, this is taught in [0009] which teaches the collating of the prospective house with map data to identify the address of the property and owner of the property from address retrieval data,
see [0009 … specifying an address, an owner … from address retrieve data.],
{[claim1] or [0009] “means for selecting a prospective house satisfying a fixed standard from the image information. And a means for collating the prospective house with map data on a computer, specifying an address, owner, etc., and preparing a prospective customer list”]}
The preparing a prospective customer list includes an address and owner and would inherently include other business contact information such as name, telephone number, email, working information and other relevant information.
As for dep. claim 8 (part of 1 above), which deals with the types of the predetermined attributes, one of building, idle land, parking lot, etc., this is taught in [claim 3] “reading position information … of public facilities such as a park, an office building,…” The selection of other similar estates such as parking lot, agricultural land, etc., would have been obvious.
As for dep. claim 15 (part of 1 above), which deals with a corresponding relationship between the owner and the address, this is taught in [0009] which teaches the collating of the prospective house with map data to identify the address of the property and owner of the property from address retrieval data,
see [0009 … specifying an address, an owner … from address retrieve data.],
{[claim1] or [0009] “means for selecting a prospective house satisfying a fixed standard from the image information. And a means for collating the prospective house with map data on a computer, specifying an address, owner, etc., and preparing a prospective customer list”]}
The preparing a prospective customer list includes an address and owner and would inherently include other business contact information such as name, telephone number, email, working information and other relevant information.
As for independent method claim 10, JP 2005-196321-A disclose a method executed in a system including at least one computer apparatus, the method comprising:
{see [009… on a computer, specifying an address….]}
[1] a region identifier that identifies, from a captured image of ground captured from the sky, a region corresponding to a piece of real estate having a fixed (predetermined) criterion; and
PNG
media_image1.png
388
451
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
152
751
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
126
698
media_image3.png
Greyscale
{see Fig. 4 which discloses the captured image of a building/house with topography from an aerial photograph or satellite photograph,” and claim 1 “a region identifier that identifies a region (area and direction of a roof) corresponding to a piece of real estate (house or building) having a predetermined (fixed) attribute (criterion), see [claim 1 “…fixed criterion from the image information.”] wherein “roof shape, a roof area, or a roof direction of a rooftop of a building” reads over “predetermined attribute” features. Also, see similar teachings in [0009 … shape, area and direction of a roof …satisfying a fixed standard from the image information….] above.
[2] an address identifier that identifies an address of the piece of real estate corresponding to the identified region.
{see [claim1] or
[0001 …by a computer, specifying a customer address and owner by collating with map data..],
[0009] “means for selecting a prospective house satisfying a fixed standard from the image information. And a means for collating the prospective house with map data on a computer, specifying an address…”]}
The “means for … specifying an address” reads over the term “an address identifier” that identifies an address of the piece of real estate corresponding to the identified region.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
On October 10, 2007, the Patent Office issued the "Examination Guidelines for Determining Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. 103 in View of the Supreme Court Decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.," 73 Fed. Reg. 57,526 (2007) (hereinafter the Examination Guidelines). Section III is entitled "Rationales to support rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103." Within this section is the following quote from the Supreme Court: "rejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by merely conclusory statements; instead there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1741 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
Under the Examination Guidelines, the following is a list of rationales that may be used to support a finding of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103:
(a) combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(b) simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(c) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(d) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
(e) "Obvious to try" choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(f) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art; and
(g) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation (TSM) in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Each rationale is resolved using the Graham factual inquiries.
Dependent claim 2 (part of 1 above) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2005-196321-A as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of (2) DORFMAN ET AL., US 2008/0.189.130.
The teaching of JP 2005-196321-A is cited above.
DORFMAN ET AL. teaches the correlation of a street address of a building to geographic locations such as longitude and latitude coordinates for use in a computer system, see abstract.
PNG
media_image4.png
152
608
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the
system of JP 2005-196321-A to correlate the address of a property with the geographic locations such as longitude and latitude coordinates as taught by DORFMAN ET AL. for use in a computer system, see abstract.
Dependent claim 5 (part of 1/3 above) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2005-196321-A as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of (3) ANAND ET AL., US 2012/0.239.699.
The teaching of JP 2005-196321-A is cited above.
ANAND ET AL. teaches the correlation or relationship between an owner of a piece of a real estate, owner address, and the identified lot number, see [0047] and Fig. 6.
PNG
media_image5.png
348
498
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
216
600
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the
system of JP 2005-196321-A to include the correspondent relationship of an owner of a piece of a real estate, owner address, and the identified lot number as taught by ANAND ET AL. for various business application, see [0047].
Dependent claim 6 (part of 1 /3 above) and respective 17 (part of 15 above) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2005-196321-A as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of (4) RICHARDS ET AL., US 2020/0.184.583.
The teaching of JP 2005-196321-A is cited above.
RICHARDS ET AL. teaches an apparatus having a transmitter for transmitting information to the owner of a property and the use of a printer for printing the medium and data storage for storing information, see abstract, [0201] and [0212].
PNG
media_image7.png
262
612
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
218
720
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the
system of JP 2005-196321-A to include a transmitter for transmitting information to the owner of a property and the use of a printer for printing the medium and data storage for storing information as taught by RICHARDS ET AL., see abstract, [0201] and Fig. 2, database for storing information. The provision of a 2nd transmitter to transmit information to different entities or owners would have been obvious if there are other entities/owners involved.
Dependent claim(s) 7 (part of 1 /3 above) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2005-196321-A as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of (5) KHALATE ET AL., US 2018/0.373.234.
The teaching of JP 2005-196321-A is cited above.
KHALATE ET AL. is cited to teach the use of a machine learning (ML) technique to generate a prediction model for a real estate (building) management system using plurality of monitored variables (attributes) associated with the building management, see abstract.
PNG
media_image9.png
278
646
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the
system of JP 2005-196321-A to include the use of a machine learning (ML) technique to generate a prediction model for a real estate (building) management system using plurality of monitored variables (attributes) associated with the building management as taught by KHALATE ET AL. for real estate management.
Dependent claim(s) 11 (part of 1 above) and respective 14 (part of 10 above) are rejected is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2005-196321-A as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of (6) WILBERT ET AL., US 2020/0.008.014.
The teaching of JP 2005-196321-A is cited above.
WILBERT ET AL. is cited to teach the correlation of an address identifier on a real estate regions corresponding to plurality of points of the regions on a capture image, see [0113].
PNG
media_image10.png
230
618
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the
system of JP 2005-196321-A to include the correlation of an address identifier on a real estate regions corresponding to plurality of points of the regions on a capture image as taught by WILBERT ET AL., see [0113].
Dependent claim(s) 12 (part of 1 /11 above) and respective 19 (part of 10 above) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2005-196321-A / WILBERT ET AL. as applied to claim 1, and 11 above, and further in view of (7) CN 108.615.170 A, 10/02/2018.
The teaching of JP 2005-196321-A /WILBERT ET AL. is cited above.
CN 108.615.170 is cited to teach the use of a display on a screen display to list an entity (shop owner), shop address, transaction information, contact ways, etc.
PNG
media_image11.png
302
746
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the
system of JP 2005-196321-A /WILBERT ET AL. to include a display on a screen display to list an entity (shop owner), shop address, transaction information, contact ways, etc. as taught by CN 108.615.170 for displaying transaction information.
Dependent claim(s) 16 (part of 1 /15 above) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2005-196321-A / WILBERT ET AL. as applied to claim 1, and 11 above, and further in view of (8) DETTINGER ET AL., US 2010/0.094.894.
The teaching of JP 2005-196321-A /WILBERT ET AL. is cited above.
DETTINGER ET AL. is cited to teach a string input receptor that receives an input of a string in a query condition of an analysis, [0069-0070].
PNG
media_image12.png
356
772
media_image12.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image13.png
260
696
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the
system of JP 2005-196321-A /WILBERT ET AL. to include the use a string input receptor that receives an input of a string in a query condition of an analysis as taught by DETTINGER ET. AL, [0069-0070] for query input of address and owner analysis.
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tan "Dean" D NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6806. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 6:30-4:30 PM (ET).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sarah M Monfeldt can be reached on 571-270-1833. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TAN D NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689
Prosecution Insights